Okay, now I'm getting out of my depth . I'll have to (one day when I have time and am not able to sleep ) go back and re-read O.E. and O.L.--and hope I understand them. And no, I'm not kidding .

But, here's my feeble understanding so far: The two lung theory or expression or whatever was an analogy to try to illustrate that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both parts of the Body of Christ. You and xariskai are both Orthodox. You are both also individuals. As such, you are both parts of the Body of Christ. Papist and I are both Catholic. We are both also individuals. As such, we are both parts of the Body of Christ. I hope I'm making sense .

One lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Catholic Communion". The other lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Orthodox Communion". The two lungs are not functioning in harmony with one another and therefor the whole Body is unwell. That's the schism between us. Am I oversimplifying this, or, more likely, just talking nonsense? Anyway, that is my understanding.

How you understand it is how I understand it, and I disagree with that understanding. That is why I said, the Church breathes fully regardless of who is there. Is the body of Christ divided? No. It is full and complete and perfect always. And those who schism are removed from the body without literally cutting off any part of the body that renders the body imperfect and incomplete.

I believe you just described my understanding of what the Catholic Church (all those Churches in communion with Rome) is and believes itself to be.

I know the Orthodox don't hold this view (except some, sometimes ), but the Catholic Church believes itself to be in communion with the Orthodox Church--in *imperfect* communion (please don't ask me to elaborate on that !). That would account for the 2 lungs not working together properly; that is our schism.

One last comment before I blow myself and everyone else away with my bloviating--we are talking of analogies and models, etc. Well, just as a map is not the territory, so too is a model not that which it tries to represent.

Phew! Now I need a drink and a nap .

But Communion is like pregnancy. You either are pregnant or not. A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks. You either are in communion or not. I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is. I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body. Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way. We Church is not the Borg. We come into communion by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and become members of the body. So we either are a part of the body or not. I don't understand how imperfect communion works. Your body has all the organs as part of it. If you transplant an organ to your body, your body either accepts it or rejects it. There is no, "yeah, keep it attached and it is useful in some way but in other ways we'll reject it." I think the Catholic Church is using the scholastic meaning of Communion, that is that we are of one mind. So imperfect Communion means "we mostly agree but there are things we don't so its not 100%." But that is not what the Mystery of Communion is about. It is sort of an all or nothing afair, we either are Christians or we're not. We are either in heaven or in hell. We are either part of the Church or not.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches. But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it. To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

If I read you correctly, as you do, applying only to his communion, not to us Orthodox.

Where did the lung-thing originate, btw?

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Okay, now I'm getting out of my depth . I'll have to (one day when I have time and am not able to sleep ) go back and re-read O.E. and O.L.--and hope I understand them. And no, I'm not kidding .

But, here's my feeble understanding so far: The two lung theory or expression or whatever was an analogy to try to illustrate that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both parts of the Body of Christ. You and xariskai are both Orthodox. You are both also individuals. As such, you are both parts of the Body of Christ. Papist and I are both Catholic. We are both also individuals. As such, we are both parts of the Body of Christ. I hope I'm making sense .

One lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Catholic Communion". The other lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Orthodox Communion". The two lungs are not functioning in harmony with one another and therefor the whole Body is unwell. That's the schism between us. Am I oversimplifying this, or, more likely, just talking nonsense? Anyway, that is my understanding.

How you understand it is how I understand it, and I disagree with that understanding. That is why I said, the Church breathes fully regardless of who is there. Is the body of Christ divided? No. It is full and complete and perfect always. And those who schism are removed from the body without literally cutting off any part of the body that renders the body imperfect and incomplete.

I believe you just described my understanding of what the Catholic Church (all those Churches in communion with Rome) is and believes itself to be.

I know the Orthodox don't hold this view (except some, sometimes ), but the Catholic Church believes itself to be in communion with the Orthodox Church--in *imperfect* communion (please don't ask me to elaborate on that !). That would account for the 2 lungs not working together properly; that is our schism.

One last comment before I blow myself and everyone else away with my bloviating--we are talking of analogies and models, etc. Well, just as a map is not the territory, so too is a model not that which it tries to represent.

Phew! Now I need a drink and a nap .

But Communion is like pregnancy. You either are pregnant or not. A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks. You either are in communion or not. I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is. I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body. Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way. We Church is not the Borg. We come into communion by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and become members of the body. So we either are a part of the body or not. I don't understand how imperfect communion works. Your body has all the organs as part of it. If you transplant an organ to your body, your body either accepts it or rejects it. There is no, "yeah, keep it attached and it is useful in some way but in other ways we'll reject it." I think the Catholic Church is using the scholastic meaning of Communion, that is that we are of one mind. So imperfect Communion means "we mostly agree but there are things we don't so its not 100%." But that is not what the Mystery of Communion is about. It is sort of an all or nothing afair, we either are Christians or we're not. We are either in heaven or in hell. We are either part of the Church or not.

I do understand what you mean, and for the most part tend to agree with you. I guess when it all comes down to it, our basic disagreement is on where the Church is. That's why you call yourself "Orthodox" and I call myself "Catholic". See my post #31 above. You know, post #31 above .

I do understand what you mean, and for the most part tend to agree with you. I guess when it all comes down to it, our basic disagreement is on where the Church is. That's why you call yourself "Orthodox" and I call myself "Catholic". See my post #31 above. You know, post #31 above .

Well, I must state that I do disagree with the Catholic understanding, otherwise I would have remained Catholic if I agreed with it

To me this is a bigger issue than the Papacy which convinced me to convert.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches. But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it. To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

If I read you correctly, as you do, applying only to his communion, not to us Orthodox.

Where did the lung-thing originate, btw?

Here, maybe?

Quote

54. The other event which I am pleased to recall is the celebration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus' (988-1988). The Catholic Church, and this Apostolic See in particular, desired to take part in the Jubilee celebrations and also sought to emphasize that the Baptism conferred on Saint Vladimir in Kiev was a key event in the evangelization of the world. The great Slav nations of Eastern Europe owe their faith to this event, as do the peoples living beyond the Ural Mountains and as far as Alaska.

In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus' it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity. This is what I strongly asserted in my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli 85 on Saints Cyril and Methodius and in my Apostolic Letter Euntes in Mundum 86 addressed to the faithful of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

But Communion is like pregnancy. You either are pregnant or not. A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks. You either are in communion or not. I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is. I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body. Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

But Communion is like pregnancy. You either are pregnant or not. A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks. You either are in communion or not. I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is. I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body. Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

But Communion is like pregnancy. You either are pregnant or not. A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks. You either are in communion or not. I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is. I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body. Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

What is?

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

But Communion is like pregnancy. You either are pregnant or not. A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks. You either are in communion or not. I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is. I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body. Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

What is?

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

Man, you are painting with WAY too broad of a brush here.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

I don't think anyone is pretending there is some sort of communion with the Oriental Orthodox. I don't think EOs are lining up to recieve Communion from their Coptic neighbor. There is just some recognition at this point that the faith is at a point that union is possible, but at the same time acknowledging that we are not there yet. For Catholics, much work is still left to be done.

But Communion is like pregnancy. You either are pregnant or not. A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks. You either are in communion or not. I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is. I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body. Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

What is?

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

I don't think anyone is pretending there is some sort of communion with the Oriental Orthodox. I don't think EOs are lining up to recieve Communion from their Coptic neighbor. There is just some recognition at this point that the faith is at a point that union is possible, but at the same time acknowledging that we are not there yet. For Catholics, much work is still left to be done.

+1

As much as I would love to commune at an OO church (without exceptional permission), we are not yet in communion with them - regardless of their being Orthodox.

The difference with other groups is that they're not only out of communion, but they're not Orthodox either. Now I don't mean "Orthodox" in a dismissive truth claim sense, nor do I mean that unity shouldn't be strived for.

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

They say prayer is the last refuge of the scoundrel, but it often seems that RCs on the internet use the OO for that purpose instead. Maybe if you guys put more effort into responding to the substance of what EOs (and OOs, if you care at all beyond using us to take potshots at the Orthodox Church) say would improve RC-Orthodox relations instead of just pointing to Chalcedon as though its aftermath somehow speaks to the utter reasonableness and/or purity of your communion, you wouldn't have to trot out the OO/EO divide as insulation from the criticism that your ecclesiology makes no sense.

As I'm sure I've written here before, whether EO (individually or collectively) see OO as Orthodox or not, the Roman Catholic Church isn't Orthodox. Whether OO (individually or collectively) see EO as Orthodox or not, the Roman Catholic Church isn't Orthodox. The OO and EO could resume communion officially tomorrow (hypothetically), and the Roman Catholic Church and all in communion with it would still not be Orthodox.

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing. The first time I talked to my priest and he told me that Eastern Catholics are not "Orthodox", I was almost in tears. Actually, I was, I just held back. This is because Rome keeps telling her flock that "we believe in the same things (the Orthodox) but we just express them in different ways." So when an Orthodox tells one who is Catholic that such a claim is false, its hurtful. Its like you loved this girl only for her to tell you she doesn't love you back. But the truth is there are differences and we need to work on them. I hope the Catholic side would recognize this because we can't work on something we don't believe it is not there. If they think there are no differences, then there is nothing for them to work on. How can talks progress?

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.

At the moment I'm a trifle more annoyed by the hit-and-run (if you will): you guys love to pontificate stuff like "You either are in communion or not"*, but we Catholics (or, presumably, Anglicans, or Lutherans, or whoever else) had better not "trot out the OO/EO divide" in response.

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.

At the moment I'm a trifle more annoyed by the hit-and-run (if you will): you guys love to pontificate stuff like "You either are in communion or not"*, but we Catholics (or, presumably, Anglicans, or Lutherans, or whoever else) had better not "trot out the OO/EO divide" in response.

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")

Actually this discussion on "communion or not" was from CAF. And I agree. I mean, is partial communion even communion? How do you even determine that? How much similarity is similar enough? Who sets the guidelines?

I really don't have much to say about the EO/OO. I don't have much experience with the OO in anything. But at least for communion, I'm quite firm in my belief that it is an all or nothing thing. It's like, "do we agree or not?" How can we say we believe in the same Jesus if we can't agree in all points about Him? And even if there are 100 points and we only disagree on one, how can we say that we are talking about the same Jesus?

we Catholics (or, presumably, Anglicans, or Lutherans, or whoever else) had better not "trot out the OO/EO divide" in response.

Did you happen to read why I wrote that, Peter J -- how the EO/OO divide has no impact on your church's (or any of those other churches' that you mentioned) standing in the eyes of either communion, so it's a non-point? You think it's an argument against Orthodox ecclesiology, but it isn't. Both communions, in fact, affirm that you're either in communion or not...hence we're not in communion (nobody on either side is in denial about that; an individual saying that to him it doesn't matter if one is EO or OO isn't the same as saying that EO and OO are in communion). If we ever are in communion again, I'll wager dollars to donuts that we'll all still live by that principle.

It is my understanding from several sources of articles and forum threads that the two-lung theory of which Pope John Paul II spoke meant that the Roman rites (and traditions) were one lung and the Eastern Catholics (with their traditions and rites) were the other, without the Orthodox. If you know of a reputable and trustworthy source citing otherwise, please let me know.

Interesting discussion on the meaning of Catholic and differences in ecclesiology. I never imagined we were so difference until recently. I read somewhere online recently that the Catholics view their unity as under Rome and we view ours by communion/eucharist, or something basically to that effect comparing those two things.

Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")

I think being out of communion and EO/OO being Orthodox are not mutually exclusive.

Many EO likewise consider Old Calendarists and schismatic Old Believers to be Orthodox, but would not commune at their churches.

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")

I think being out of communion and EO/OO being Orthodox are not mutually exclusive.

Many EO likewise consider Old Calendarists and schismatic Old Believers to be Orthodox, but would not commune at their churches.

Isn't this also the same for the RCs?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Interesting discussion on the meaning of Catholic and differences in ecclesiology. I never imagined we were so difference until recently. I read somewhere online recently that the Catholics view their unity as under Rome and we view ours by communion/eucharist, or something basically to that effect comparing those two things.

I don't think it's strictly either/or. We also view the Eucharist as communion with each other (those who make up the Church) as well as with Christ.

It is my understanding from several sources of articles and forum threads that the two-lung theory of which Pope John Paul II spoke meant that the Roman rites (and traditions) were one lung and the Eastern Catholics (with their traditions and rites) were the other, without the Orthodox. If you know of a reputable and trustworthy source citing otherwise, please let me know.

Interesting discussion on the meaning of Catholic and differences in ecclesiology. I never imagined we were so difference until recently. I read somewhere online recently that the Catholics view their unity as under Rome and we view ours by communion/eucharist, or something basically to that effect comparing those two things.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches. But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it. To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

Ok, the traditions may be shared by Eastern Catholics and by Orthodoxy, but a body does not breath with a lung that is outside of its body, and having those traditions in the Eastern Catholic Churches does not necessitate that the Orthodox be part of it. Calling us brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply we are the other lungs, does it? I thought maybe others were called that too.

At any rate, I suppose that is relatively irrelevant. Even if the Orthodox are the Eastern lung, that doesn't mean they think we are fully breathing.

Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.

Forgive me, but we (Catholics and Orthodox) don't believe the same thing. That may be a disapointment to find it out, or feelings may be hurt, but most of the time, it is not intended to be mean, just a statement of fact.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

Catholic Church just tries to be Catholic by adding sui iuris Churches that act like autocephalus Churches but in reality they are just "rites". So they "have" Churches from every tradition (various Greek-Catholics, malankara, assyrian=chaldean, etc.) to show that Roman Church is the proper Catholic Church, while it is not. And it doesn't matter for them that some of these sui iuris Churches have very few believers (e.g many Copts don't know there are Catholic ones) and lose their own traditions and spirit.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches. But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it. To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

Ok, the traditions may be shared by Eastern Catholics and by Orthodoxy, but a body does not breath with a lung that is outside of its body, and having those traditions in the Eastern Catholic Churches does not necessitate that the Orthodox be part of it. Calling us brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply we are the other lungs, does it? I thought maybe others were called that too.

At any rate, I suppose that is relatively irrelevant. Even if the Orthodox are the Eastern lung, that doesn't mean they think we are fully breathing.

I think that pope John Paul II by "the eastern lung" meant Orthodox Churches, but by the appeal to "begin breathing with two lungs" he probably meant Orthodox Churches after the finish of ecumenical process = unityon the basis of Catholic Church rules, so that they would become something like Eastern Catholic Churches.

BTW, this quotation about the 2 lungs is often cited by Polish media and Roman Catholics.

Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

I think that pope John Paul II by "the eastern lung" meant Orthodox Churches, but by the appeal to "begin breathing with two lungs" he probably meant Orthodox Churches after the finish of ecumenical process = unityon the basis of Catholic Church rules, so that they would become something like Eastern Catholic Churches.

As I remember reading elsewhere exactly what those rules are I daresay you are correct and that this just will not happen.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")

I think being out of communion and EO/OO being Orthodox are not mutually exclusive.

I guess I would be fine with that explanation, if it weren't for the first statement, "It [Orthodoxy -- which apparently includes both EO and OO] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t."

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.

Forgive me, but we (Catholics and Orthodox) don't believe the same thing. That may be a disapointment to find it out, or feelings may be hurt, but most of the time, it is not intended to be mean, just a statement of fact.

Nothing to forgive, katherineofdixie .

I've come to accept (for the most part, anyway) that that is true. The rub comes in discussing differences and similarities with some Orthodox who relish in a kind of very prideful triumphalism accompanied by a nasty or snarky tone and an attitude of "all aspects of the schism are the fault and responsibility of the Catholics and we Orthodox remain totally unsullied by fault, blame, or responsibility, and if you want to be part of THE CHURCH, you MUST become Orthodox--our way or the highway". This is demeaning and insulting, especially in conversation where others are trying to discuss and maybe even resolve the differences between us with good will and friendship.

So...my position will remain as I stated in reply #31 above: "Until such time as we are able to resolve our differences as Orthodox and Catholic, and resume full communion with one another, I'm willing to take the position that we must agree to disagree with each other about some things, all the while maintaining the fullest and deepest respect for each other. Without such respect, we shouldn't even be talking with each other.

As a non-Roman Catholic, my understanding has always been that the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church (in all its various parts) does indeed possess "catholicity in the classical patristic and etymological sense of the word catholic."" And, as a Catholic, I will continue to maintain and believe that the Catholic Church is The Church and has the full fullness of the faith. As for the Orthodox....I'll take the Orthodox position and say, "I don't know".

Please forgive me if I have offended or upset anyone by saying the above--it was certainly NOT my intention to do so.

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.

Forgive me, but we (Catholics and Orthodox) don't believe the same thing. That may be a disapointment to find it out, or feelings may be hurt, but most of the time, it is not intended to be mean, just a statement of fact.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches. But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it. To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

Ok, the traditions may be shared by Eastern Catholics and by Orthodoxy, but a body does not breath with a lung that is outside of its body, and having those traditions in the Eastern Catholic Churches does not necessitate that the Orthodox be part of it. Calling us brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply we are the other lungs, does it? I thought maybe others were called that too.

At any rate, I suppose that is relatively irrelevant. Even if the Orthodox are the Eastern lung, that doesn't mean they think we are fully breathing.

The Orthodox is the other lung. That is why Pope John Paul II is calling for us to reunite so that "the Church may breathe with both lungs". Essentially he is saying both Churches are lacking right now, breathing only with one lung until we reunite. Which is where the criticism of this analogy comes from.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches. But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it. To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

Ok, the traditions may be shared by Eastern Catholics and by Orthodoxy, but a body does not breath with a lung that is outside of its body, and having those traditions in the Eastern Catholic Churches does not necessitate that the Orthodox be part of it. Calling us brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply we are the other lungs, does it? I thought maybe others were called that too.

At any rate, I suppose that is relatively irrelevant. Even if the Orthodox are the Eastern lung, that doesn't mean they think we are fully breathing.

The Orthodox is the other lung. That is why Pope John Paul II is calling for us to reunite so that "the Church may breathe with both lungs". Essentially he is saying both Churches are lacking right now, breathing only with one lung until we reunite. Which is where the criticism of this analogy comes from.

I've been involved with more conversations about JPII and "two lungs" than I care to think about, and I've never seen anyone substantiate either claim (that he meant ECs, or that he meant EOs). Just saying.

I've been involved with more conversations about JPII and "two lungs" than I care to think about, and I've never seen anyone substantiate either claim (that he meant ECs, or that he meant EOs). Just saying.

The one time Pope John Paul II uses the two-lung analogy in Ut Unum Sint, he was talking about Church unity with Byzantium and the Slavs (in reference to the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus). So it definitely a reference to the Orthodox.

I've been involved with more conversations about JPII and "two lungs" than I care to think about, and I've never seen anyone substantiate either claim (that he meant ECs, or that he meant EOs). Just saying.

The one time Pope John Paul II uses the two-lung analogy in Ut Unum Sint, he was talking about Church unity with Byzantium and the Slavs (in reference to the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus). So it definitely a reference to the Orthodox.

He's definitely talking about the Orthodox there; but even so, he isn't necessarily saying that the EOC is "a lung".

My best guess (fwiw) is that JPII never really identified the "Eastern lung" with a group, making it more of a slogan than an actual term.

I've been involved with more conversations about JPII and "two lungs" than I care to think about, and I've never seen anyone substantiate either claim (that he meant ECs, or that he meant EOs). Just saying.

The one time Pope John Paul II uses the two-lung analogy in Ut Unum Sint, he was talking about Church unity with Byzantium and the Slavs (in reference to the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus). So it definitely a reference to the Orthodox.

He's definitely talking about the Orthodox there; but even so, he isn't necessarily saying that the EOC is "a lung".

My best guess (fwiw) is that JPII never really identified the "Eastern lung" with a group, making it more of a slogan than an actual term.

So why then say "both lungs" and then "Rome and Byzantium"? Why can't he just say one heart or one body?

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues. Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one? The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues. Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one? The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues. Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one? The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues. Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one? The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe.

Uh, I've never met or spoken to an actual Eastern Catholic in my entire life.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues. Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one? The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe.

Uh, I've never met or spoken to an actual Eastern Catholic in my entire life.